In other words, you have no plan, and you're a lying piece of shit.
Given that the only way to prove anything would be to become a burden and then either die or not, what exactly can anyone be expecting here? That I maim myself to become unproductive, and then see what happens? Are you stupid, insane or just an internet wanker?
Positive or even neutral genes spread quite rapidly. A calculation I saw said that it will take no more than 200 generations for a non-malign mutation to spread from one averagely fertile person to half of the US population. If this is a relatively new mutation, with only a few generations, it should still be detectable. Either we're not looking, or it may not be a gene that survives well in a setting substantially different from the Amish. More studies seem warranted before breaking any apple cider bottles.
Go into an tropical jungle, e.g. Amazonas. The mulch is not even 30cm thick
30 cm times the area of the Amazon rain forests is a huge volume of bound carbon. And for many other types of forests, the layer is quite substantially thicker. And has a large impact too.
Peatlands have the same property. It's not a fast process, by any means, but it is an ongoing process, and net positive.
No, it is not net positive.
Quoting Wikipedia:
The peatland ecosystem is the most efficient carbon sink on the planet,[2] because peatland plants capture CO2 naturally released from the peat, maintaining an equilibrium. In natural peatlands, the "annual rate of biomass production is greater than the rate of decomposition", but it takes "thousands of years for peatlands to develop the deposits of 1.5 to 2.3 m [4.9 to 7.5 ft], which is the average depth of the boreal [northern] peatlands".[2]
You said you were reaching the end of your productive life, Will it be drugs? A rope? Bullet to the brainpan (messy, not recommended)?
It's quite frankly none of your business. That said, there are non-messy ways to go too. Refusal of medical services past the age of productivity is common in some cultures. It works quite well on a larger scale, as it weeds out the worst cases first, and our genetic disposition for not living forever comes stronger into play. We haven't evolved to live long lives, because it's not a benefit for our genes, so most of us won't have long natural lives without medical intervention.
Because there's only one definition of 'good' that makes sense to me, and that is achieving what I desire.
To spend 20 years in diapers, all your friends dead, and your mind dying a little more every day, but for a while still knowing that you cost your children and grandchildren a fortune they can't use for better things? If that's "good" in your definition, you're entitled to think so. But I'm also entitled to call you both selfish and short-sighted..
Sounds like someone's got a financial stake in the funeral business.
No, and you haven't thought this one through. Everybody dies. Those with a financial stake in the funeral business would be those who lobby against birth control. The more people that get born, the more people there are that undoubtedly will die.
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
I have contingency plans in place should I become a burden, and they don't involve spending huge amounts of money getting medical assistance to die, when my family can do better with that money than the leechers. Right now, I'm still reasonably productive, but still have a DNR. Enough about me - how about you? You'll gladly be a burden for others, including your own children? Does that make you feel proud?
Statistics show otherwise. For 2010, the average personal expenses (out-of pocket + insurance) for healthcare for a 45-64 year old was $8,370, and the total expenses (including medicare/medicaid/other) $13,115. For an 85+ year old, the average personal expenses was $34,783, and the total expenses $131,164. (Source: www.cms.gov) That's not covering non-healthcare expenses. While the costs for consumables likely are lower, housing and electricity isn't going to be any lower just because an old person lives there instead of a younger one. Let's say $20k/year for living expenses.
You can buy an awful lot of services from babysitters and pedagogues for $150k/year.
Face it, we're not doing this for logical reasons, but emotional ones. And we will pay the price of not spending our resources on our young but the elderly. We're borrowing from our children and grandchildren, raising debt that they will have to deal with. Whether it's worth it is up to each individual, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's a net plus for your children and grandchildren.
From an evolutionary perspective, I cannot see how it could not be bad. Those who don't will easily win, by having more resources for their offspring, and those who spend a significant amount of resources on keeping people alive will be selected against in that competition.
Seriously? You think that old people have nothing to contribute to society?
I never said that. I even put the significant word net in emphasis, so even the most feeble-minded wouldn't think I said that.
Even if my 90yo mother babysits my children, she can entertain them with stories, help teach them values and morality. Not to mention the economic benefits my wife and I would gain by not having to pay for daily care.
Be brutally honest - does the non-sentimental value of that exceed the ever-growing costs of keeping her around?
Also, you lost me at "teach... morality". If morality doesn't come from within, but indoctrination is needed, your family is part of the problem, not the solution.
Im gping to guess that your under 30 and have yet to contribute to the gene pool...
Actually, no, I'm nearing the end of my productive life, and the genes go on, even if I won't. I'm fine with that.
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills.
True, and the human lifespan reflects that. Those who died early while still being net contributors were selected against, and so did those who lived overly long. Based on the human reproductive cycle, and a mix between living in hardship and living with surplus, evolution is at a point where it's beneficial to live past the reproductive cycle, but not too long past it.
And a larger resource footprint only means there's room for fewer, but there's always a sustainable size.
Yes, and no. Our biggest adversary is other humans, and if one group of people put an ever-growing ratio of their resources into prolonging life, while another doesn't, the latter will be rewarded, long term.
I think that in our quest to defeat evolution, we lose sight of "long term". Other species never had to deal with competitors that defy evolution; it's not something we are fully equipped to deal with either. I fear that the cruel laws of nature will catch up, as it always does, and that our refusal to adapt and try to impose "morals" on what's amoral will be our downfall.
Would you consider it bad if you lived 10% less? No? How about 25%? When does bad kick in for you?
When the net contribution to survival of my genes becomes negative, I become a non-symbiotic parasite. Then it's time to die.
And that's what evolution will select for too. Those who don't spend an ever-growing portion of their resources on keeping old people alive at all costs will easily win, long term. Fighting it is a battle that cannot be won, and is why we don't live to 300 years already. Nature selects against that.
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good? Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
You are advancing a false dichotomy, and allude to this fact in your post. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed complementary.
That doesn't imply that both are good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be orthogonal. Increased quality of life can be good without increased longevity being good. That's why it's a real dichotomy, not a false one.
Grandparents help raise their children's children. Huge help in not only babysitting but passing along knowledge. How do you think we got to where we are technologically?
To be honest, there's little you can learn from your grandparents that you can't learn from your parents. And when someone pushes the 90s, what, exactly, do you learn from them?
Again, the net contribution to the genes that were passed on has to be positive. Unless the benefits the old animal gives exceeds the detrimentals (like competition for resources, time spent that could be spent obtaining resources, decreased mobility), nature will select against extended life. Those who die at the point where net benefit turns to zero will be selected for.
Those are all artificial means that increase the quality of life. Don't confuse quality of life with longevity. Even if the same remedies often increase both, they are two very different goals.
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it. Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
True, but your net contribution to the genes you sowed must be higher than the cost of competing for the resources, otherwise the genes of those who die earlier will be selected for.
of these 43 people. Or did they examine the already deceased?
Given genes are genetic, and the mutation is widespread enough to not be completely new, the life span of the ancestors is significant. If someone with the gene had parents that lived 10 years longer than average, that's significant. Add to this the higher projected lifespan due to lower prevalence of e.g. obesity and D2.
But before we get all hallelujah about this, looking for negative effects might be prudent too. If it was all positive, this mutation would likely be far more spread around than it is. While a semi-closed community, Amish do sometimes leave the fold and have children.
No, this is genetics. Some Amish live longer than other Amish with the same lifestyle, and are less prone to get D2, among other things.
But the question I want to ask is whether living longer is a good thing. Once past the age of reproduction, the genes do not benefit from people living on forever - then they become competitors for resources used by the offspring. Stop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death. There is no hell you're going to burn in for eternity. You won't feel a thing.
Nope, GP already took that into account. You need to sequester the wood somewhere otherwise you're just treading water - the amount of carbon captured by trees is equal to the amount released by the old trees, so you don't even make a dent on the effect of burning fossil fuels.
No, that is an incorrect assumption. The forest floor grows in depth over time. Much of the CO2 in the mulch is released again, but not all. As long as there's even a slight difference, and there is, the forest keeps binding more and more CO2 as it ages and the forest floor becomes deeper. An old forest can have a quite deep accumulation - all solids created from gas harvested from the air. Peatlands have the same property. It's not a fast process, by any means, but it is an ongoing process, and net positive.
More forests. Reforest what's been taken for other purposes.
Also, forests have this amazing ability to increase the amount of CO2 they sequester over time, as the forest floor grows deeper. Some of the carbon in mulch is released, but not all, which makes a positive and growing difference as a forest ages.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gives a shit if far future descendants even exist, much less have a better life?
They do.
Which is why a good part of the human population do care about things like climate change, and think alt-right egotism is a sad blight.
In other words, you have no plan, and you're a lying piece of shit.
Given that the only way to prove anything would be to become a burden and then either die or not, what exactly can anyone be expecting here? That I maim myself to become unproductive, and then see what happens? Are you stupid, insane or just an internet wanker?
Positive or even neutral genes spread quite rapidly. A calculation I saw said that it will take no more than 200 generations for a non-malign mutation to spread from one averagely fertile person to half of the US population. If this is a relatively new mutation, with only a few generations, it should still be detectable.
Either we're not looking, or it may not be a gene that survives well in a setting substantially different from the Amish. More studies seem warranted before breaking any apple cider bottles.
You should look up the difference between dichotomy and false dichotomy. You seem to think that the two are the same.
Go into an tropical jungle, e.g. Amazonas. The mulch is not even 30cm thick
30 cm times the area of the Amazon rain forests is a huge volume of bound carbon. And for many other types of forests, the layer is quite substantially thicker. And has a large impact too.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Quoting Wikipedia:
The peatland ecosystem is the most efficient carbon sink on the planet,[2] because peatland plants capture CO2 naturally released from the peat, maintaining an equilibrium. In natural peatlands, the "annual rate of biomass production is greater than the rate of decomposition", but it takes "thousands of years for peatlands to develop the deposits of 1.5 to 2.3 m [4.9 to 7.5 ft], which is the average depth of the boreal [northern] peatlands".[2]
[2]: Hugron, Sandrine; BussiÃres, Julie; Rochefort, Line (2013). Tree plantations within the context of ecological restoration of peatlands: practical guide (PDF) (Report). Laval, Québec, Canada: Peatland Ecology Research Group (PERG). Retrieved 22 February 2014.
You said you were reaching the end of your productive life, Will it be drugs? A rope? Bullet to the brainpan (messy, not recommended)?
It's quite frankly none of your business.
That said, there are non-messy ways to go too. Refusal of medical services past the age of productivity is common in some cultures. It works quite well on a larger scale, as it weeds out the worst cases first, and our genetic disposition for not living forever comes stronger into play. We haven't evolved to live long lives, because it's not a benefit for our genes, so most of us won't have long natural lives without medical intervention.
Because there's only one definition of 'good' that makes sense to me, and that is achieving what I desire.
To spend 20 years in diapers, all your friends dead, and your mind dying a little more every day, but for a while still knowing that you cost your children and grandchildren a fortune they can't use for better things?
If that's "good" in your definition, you're entitled to think so. But I'm also entitled to call you both selfish and short-sighted..
Sounds like someone's got a financial stake in the funeral business.
No, and you haven't thought this one through. Everybody dies. Those with a financial stake in the funeral business would be those who lobby against birth control. The more people that get born, the more people there are that undoubtedly will die.
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
I have contingency plans in place should I become a burden, and they don't involve spending huge amounts of money getting medical assistance to die, when my family can do better with that money than the leechers. Right now, I'm still reasonably productive, but still have a DNR.
Enough about me - how about you? You'll gladly be a burden for others, including your own children? Does that make you feel proud?
You may be right, but such a statement is not any less unfalsifiable than the notion that god exists in the first place.
The null hypothesis does not need to be falsifiable.
Statistics show otherwise.
For 2010, the average personal expenses (out-of pocket + insurance) for healthcare for a 45-64 year old was $8,370, and the total expenses (including medicare/medicaid/other) $13,115.
For an 85+ year old, the average personal expenses was $34,783, and the total expenses $131,164.
(Source: www.cms.gov)
That's not covering non-healthcare expenses. While the costs for consumables likely are lower, housing and electricity isn't going to be any lower just because an old person lives there instead of a younger one. Let's say $20k/year for living expenses.
You can buy an awful lot of services from babysitters and pedagogues for $150k/year.
Face it, we're not doing this for logical reasons, but emotional ones. And we will pay the price of not spending our resources on our young but the elderly. We're borrowing from our children and grandchildren, raising debt that they will have to deal with. Whether it's worth it is up to each individual, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's a net plus for your children and grandchildren.
So...you're insinuating that this is bad?
From an evolutionary perspective, I cannot see how it could not be bad. Those who don't will easily win, by having more resources for their offspring, and those who spend a significant amount of resources on keeping people alive will be selected against in that competition.
Seriously? You think that old people have nothing to contribute to society?
I never said that. I even put the significant word net in emphasis, so even the most feeble-minded wouldn't think I said that.
Even if my 90yo mother babysits my children, she can entertain them with stories, help teach them values and morality. Not to mention the economic benefits my wife and I would gain by not having to pay for daily care.
Be brutally honest - does the non-sentimental value of that exceed the ever-growing costs of keeping her around?
Also, you lost me at "teach ... morality". If morality doesn't come from within, but indoctrination is needed, your family is part of the problem, not the solution.
Im gping to guess that your under 30 and have yet to contribute to the gene pool...
Actually, no, I'm nearing the end of my productive life, and the genes go on, even if I won't. I'm fine with that.
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills.
True, and the human lifespan reflects that. Those who died early while still being net contributors were selected against, and so did those who lived overly long. Based on the human reproductive cycle, and a mix between living in hardship and living with surplus, evolution is at a point where it's beneficial to live past the reproductive cycle, but not too long past it.
And a larger resource footprint only means there's room for fewer, but there's always a sustainable size.
Yes, and no. Our biggest adversary is other humans, and if one group of people put an ever-growing ratio of their resources into prolonging life, while another doesn't, the latter will be rewarded, long term.
I think that in our quest to defeat evolution, we lose sight of "long term". Other species never had to deal with competitors that defy evolution; it's not something we are fully equipped to deal with either. I fear that the cruel laws of nature will catch up, as it always does, and that our refusal to adapt and try to impose "morals" on what's amoral will be our downfall.
Would you consider it bad if you lived 10% less? No? How about 25%? When does bad kick in for you?
When the net contribution to survival of my genes becomes negative, I become a non-symbiotic parasite. Then it's time to die.
And that's what evolution will select for too. Those who don't spend an ever-growing portion of their resources on keeping old people alive at all costs will easily win, long term. Fighting it is a battle that cannot be won, and is why we don't live to 300 years already. Nature selects against that.
Because people in general don't want to die
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good?
Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
You are advancing a false dichotomy, and allude to this fact in your post. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed complementary.
That doesn't imply that both are good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be orthogonal. Increased quality of life can be good without increased longevity being good. That's why it's a real dichotomy, not a false one.
Grandparents help raise their children's children. Huge help in not only babysitting but passing along knowledge. How do you think we got to where we are technologically?
To be honest, there's little you can learn from your grandparents that you can't learn from your parents. And when someone pushes the 90s, what, exactly, do you learn from them?
Again, the net contribution to the genes that were passed on has to be positive. Unless the benefits the old animal gives exceeds the detrimentals (like competition for resources, time spent that could be spent obtaining resources, decreased mobility), nature will select against extended life. Those who die at the point where net benefit turns to zero will be selected for.
These are all artificial means to extend life.
Those are all artificial means that increase the quality of life. Don't confuse quality of life with longevity. Even if the same remedies often increase both, they are two very different goals.
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it.
Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
True, but your net contribution to the genes you sowed must be higher than the cost of competing for the resources, otherwise the genes of those who die earlier will be selected for.
of these 43 people. Or did they examine the already deceased?
Given genes are genetic, and the mutation is widespread enough to not be completely new, the life span of the ancestors is significant. If someone with the gene had parents that lived 10 years longer than average, that's significant.
Add to this the higher projected lifespan due to lower prevalence of e.g. obesity and D2.
But before we get all hallelujah about this, looking for negative effects might be prudent too. If it was all positive, this mutation would likely be far more spread around than it is. While a semi-closed community, Amish do sometimes leave the fold and have children.
They've found a gene mutation that adds 10% to your lifespan. That's good!
Why exactly is this good, without begging the question?
No, this is genetics. Some Amish live longer than other Amish with the same lifestyle, and are less prone to get D2, among other things.
But the question I want to ask is whether living longer is a good thing. Once past the age of reproduction, the genes do not benefit from people living on forever - then they become competitors for resources used by the offspring. Stop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death. There is no hell you're going to burn in for eternity. You won't feel a thing.
Nope, GP already took that into account. You need to sequester the wood somewhere otherwise you're just treading water - the amount of carbon captured by trees is equal to the amount released by the old trees, so you don't even make a dent on the effect of burning fossil fuels.
No, that is an incorrect assumption. The forest floor grows in depth over time. Much of the CO2 in the mulch is released again, but not all. As long as there's even a slight difference, and there is, the forest keeps binding more and more CO2 as it ages and the forest floor becomes deeper. An old forest can have a quite deep accumulation - all solids created from gas harvested from the air.
Peatlands have the same property. It's not a fast process, by any means, but it is an ongoing process, and net positive.
More forests. Reforest what's been taken for other purposes.
Also, forests have this amazing ability to increase the amount of CO2 they sequester over time, as the forest floor grows deeper. Some of the carbon in mulch is released, but not all, which makes a positive and growing difference as a forest ages.